There should be new law specifying the UFC contract

[jx820]

Yeah, your analogy is nonsensical.
-Marketing costs are 10 percent annually and it's concentrated on a small percentage of main card fighters. Most fighters aren't even on the radar of the marketing department.
-the rest of those costs are effectively fixed. It's not like the UFC brings on new matchmakers for every card or new lawyers. Those are all in house costs spread out over 600 fighters. Broken down by individual fighters, it's insignificant.

So yeah, if I'm the UFC, it doesn't cost me much money to bring guys under contract. That's kind of the reason the UFC has such a massive roster and doesn't cut guys who retire or are sitting out for whatever reason.

Also, most fighters aren't even an investmentz they're just fodder to fill out prelims so the UFC can get it's contract money from ESPN.

Marketing costs are not 0. Fixed costs and resources can still be wasted and misallocated. You don't understand contracts or resource management and you are trying to dodge the question.

Would you lay out money and expenses for a contract that the other party didn't have to honor?

 

[Azure]

UFC makes slaves from their fighters, once they sign contract, they can´t fight anywhere else, until they cut them or contract is finished. There should be also the time expiration, like you can´t sign contract which would have effect longer than 2 years. For example the Jones or GSP thing, they basically have 0 leverage in negotiation with UFC.
In other sports you also sign for seasons/time not for matches..
Commission / law change/ fighter union would fix that.

Or maybe the fighters should just refuse to fight for the UFC and sign with Bellator/One or whoever..

They sign the contract and are bound to the terms..Blame them for signing a bad contract not the UFC for having one that favors them.

 

[avenue94]

Marketing costs are not 0. Fixed costs and resources can still be wasted and misallocated. You don't understand contracts or resource management and you are trying to dodge the question.

Would you lay out money and expenses for a contract that the other party didn't have to honor?

If the contract was between parties of equal or even close to similar power, no. But mma contracts heavily favor the promoter, as does the current market.

Let me ask you this. Generic prelim fighter, how much do you seriously think the UFC had invested? I'd argue it's next to nothing. Zero marketing, not really any legal costs as contracts are semi standardized for the lower tiers, and it would take barely any time from the matchmakers

 

[jx820]

If the contract was between parties of equal or even close to similar power, no. But mma contracts heavily favor the promoter, as does the current market.

Let me ask you this. Generic prelim fighter, how much do you seriously think the UFC had invested? I'd argue it's next to nothing. Zero marketing, not really any legal costs as contracts are semi standardized for the lower tiers, and it would take barely any time from the matchmakers

You are still dodging the question. If you want to answer my question I will field yours.

 

[avenue94]

You are still dodging the question. If you want to answer my question I will field yours.

I did in the first line. That's the answer. It's a question that doesn't make sense since the UFC can cut fighters at any time regardless of the work a fighter has invested. Apples and oranges

 

[GoldenSnitch]

Maybe Biden can waive contracts for the dumb asses who decided to sign and found out later they shouldn't have done what they did

 

[DestinedAussie]

So how does, say, a champion get out of their contract?

It looks like there is a time limit on the contract https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulgi...-are-ufc-exclusive-contracts/?sh=480ad4993cd8

You could also give up the belt and complete the contract with non-title belt (as they have to offer you options for fights).

 

[Athlas]

This thread is ill-conceived, poorly informed drivel, tbh. Fighters know what they are signing off on, they have managers and lawyers, and to compare these contracts to slavery is so fucking stupid I can't even process it. There is a lot that goes into those contracts you obviously don't know about, and even if you had one of them in front of you, I doubt you would be able to make anything out from the text.

I knew it wouldn't take long to spot a UFC nuthugger.

 

[DestinedAussie]

So how does, say, a champion get out of their contract?

It is also. worse with Bellator! https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulgi...ntracts-are-more-restrictive/?sh=502f5047471a

But the UFC says the champion clause extends the contract by 1 year or 3 fights whichever comes earlier (bellator says same except whichever comes later). Seems reasonable to hold on to the champion for a year to stop them immediately jumping ship.

There are some interesting terms around retirement and not exactly clear what happens and if the UFC contract says in force (I actually assumed UFC wouldn't want them under contract after a certain period as that could be viewed as a liability by an accountant).

 

[Gnome Chumpsky]

Nobody is forcing them to sign the contract

 

[avenue94]

It looks like there is a time limit on the contract https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulgi...-are-ufc-exclusive-contracts/?sh=480ad4993cd8

You could also give up the belt and complete the contract with non-title belt (as they have to offer you options for fights).

There isn't a time limit on UFC contracts if you retire or sit out. Not to mention the UFC has the option of tolling.

And it's unclear how to get out of a champions clause since no one has ever managed it.

It is also. worse with Bellator! https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulgi...ntracts-are-more-restrictive/?sh=502f5047471a

But the UFC says the champion clause extends the contract by 1 year or 3 fights whichever comes earlier (bellator says same except whichever comes later). Seems reasonable to hold on to the champion for a year to stop them immediately jumping ship.

There are some interesting terms around retirement and not exactly clear what happens and if the UFC contract says in force (I actually assumed UFC wouldn't want them under contract after a certain period as that could be viewed as a liability by an accountant).

Yes, mma contracts are pretty standard between promoters. And a champion's clause is pretty specific to mma, there is a reason it's been banned in most sports.

Also it's whatever comes later, and it's unclear if winning a defense just extends the clause. Which it likely does

 

[grimballer]

there is time expiration

ufc has to offer fighters 3 fights a year. if they dont fighter can leave

 

[DestinedAussie]

There isn't a time limit on UFC contracts if you retire or sit out. Not to mention the UFC has the option of tolling.

And it's unclear how to get out of a champions clause since no one has ever managed it.

Yes, mma contracts are pretty standard between promoters. And a champion's clause is pretty specific to mma, there is a reason it's been banned in most sports.

Also it's whatever comes later, and it's unclear if winning a defense just extends the clause. Which it likely does

I think the reason nobody has ever managed it is because they are in the best financial position of their career. I can't think of a champion who could get more money elsewhere than from the UFC.

Conor was able to take his boxing fight which shows the UFC is willing to bend. Also mighty mouse found his way out of UFC quickly when a better offer appeared. They were also allowing bobby knuckles to represent Australia (while champ) in wrestling although injury stopped it happening.

The question is there a UFC champ who has wanted to leave UFC (not renegotiate contract)? I don't think there ever has. The closest we might have Henry as he has been "talking" about taking a boxing match. I wonder what the status of him is and if can actually take a boxing match.

 

[Sticko]

Nobody is forcing them to sign the contract

So what? Many of us would like to see fighter contracts collectively become more fighter-friendly, and the only way that happens is with a union or legislation.

 

[brownsmith76]

It's anti-competitive. It's not a fair market.

When you buy a coca-cola bottle during lunch, you're not forced to buy coca-cola for months or years on end. You have the freedom to buy pepsi the next day, or you can skip soda altogether.

Fighters should have the freedom to go to a better organization that pays better or treats their fighters better. The UFC should be good enough to sink or swim on their own. Dana White and Endeavor are greedy, corporate bosses.

 

[CannotWin]

It's either agree or find a new line of work, the UFC has monopolyed MMA for too long now(it's starting to get better).

False.

 

[CannotWin]

I knew it wouldn't take long to spot a UFC nuthugger.

Boring.

 

[avenue94]

I think the reason nobody has ever managed it is because they are in the best financial position of their career. I can't think of a champion who could get more money elsewhere than from the UFC.

Conor was able to take his boxing fight which shows the UFC is willing to bend. Also mighty mouse found his way out of UFC quickly when a better offer appeared. They were also allowing bobby knuckles to represent Australia (while champ) in wrestling although injury stopped it happening.

The question is there a UFC champ who has wanted to leave UFC (not renegotiate contract)? I don't think there ever has. The closest we might have Henry as he has been "talking" about taking a boxing match. I wonder what the status of him is and if can actually take a boxing match.

Partly because lack of promotions that could pay more (this is a chicken and egg problem, mma contracts and promoters cripple free agency in the sport and are a barrier to new promoters entering the market), but also because it takes years and millions of dollars to fight the UFC in court. The champion's clause is likely illegal in certain states and possibly even federally. It's a effectively a reserve clause, which were abolished in sports decades ago because they cripple athlete pay. Think about it, a champion winning the belt should be at the height of their negotiating power since they've reached the pinnacle of their sport. But they aren't, they arguably have less leverage since their contracts are automatically extended indefinitely.

Also your examples aren't good ones:
-Conor was only allowed to box because the UFC took a massive cut of his purse and the fights revenue. So much so that 2017 revenue exceeded 2018 revenue for the UFC.
-MM was released, he also wasn't champion on paper after getting jobbed in the Cejudo fight.
-the UFC told Whitaker if he was injured in wrestling he'd be stripped, no interim belt. They twisted his arm on it.

Finally, Cejudo is still under contract until he fights out the contract or until the day he dies effectively. Only way he is released to box is if he's willing to fork over a massive chunk of his purse.

 

[avenue94]

there is time expiration

ufc has to offer fighters 3 fights a year. if they dont fighter can leave

This statement is oversimplifying, champion's clauses, long matching and negotiating periods, threat of tolling, the option option a promoter to bury or cripple a fighter's market value before fee agency (the UFC has admitted this in court), etc. These all make getting out of contracts or fighting them out much more complicated in reality.

 

[sutherland]

False.

True